cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Category talk:Good alliance pages
Good alliance page nominations This process is just meant to identify good alliance pages (example: link TBD) from bad alliance pages (example: United Global Order). There's no defined close out period at the moment for nominations. Nomination Format Article name/link *'Nomination' - Reason(s) for why you are nominating the article - sign your name (type "~~~~") Voting/Commenting on a nomination ::Support/Oppose/Comment/Abstain - Reason(s) for why you are in support/opposition etc to the nomination (although reason(s) are not mandatory). - sign your name (type "~~~~") Nominations New Pacific Order *'Nomination' - Very in depth alliance article including alliance structure, culture, government, brief history with founding, treaties and gallery. additional links to charter, history, gov history. Rogal talk 03:44,9/11/2012 (UTC) ::Abstain - In general, I feel the page is well within the necessary requirements content-wise for this distinction. However, I think some of the formatting could definitely be improved to make the article as a whole more æsthetically pleasing. It's also my personal opinion that things like the news template present in the introduction, which are not encyclopædic in nature, would be better suited to inclusion in a relevant portal than the article. Michael von Preußen | talk :::Comment - the news box was put there because we got rid of the portal since it was so out of date and too much work to keep updating content there as well as across the wiki. It's kind of a compromise. Maybe not entirely encyclopedic, but it's always updated. What don't you like about the formatting? [[User:Bobogoobo| ]] 18:04, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 ( ) ::Support - I personally like my alliance's wiki page, it works well and is updated regularly. We have made improvements over time, our latest one being a "Recent News" section where we can inform in public of all the recent events. We also have a lots of great information explaining each of our departments and many pages about our culture and history. [[User:Dan100| ]] 09:02, September 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Support - I like the fact that it expands on each role in government and contains links to pages on its publications and history. I love the "Bringing order to chaos" graphic on the top box. However, I think that its companion history page Pacifica Monogatari could use a few images, just like that of a history of a good nation page.--LoganYeo (talk • ) 13:40, September 12, 2012 (UTC) ::Support - Well-structured pages with lots of information. A definite top-runner. - Arrnea (talk • ) 14:39, September 12, 2012 (UTC) ::Abstain - My alliance's page, enough said. (Mantineia (talk • ) 21:20, September 12, 2012 (UTC)) ::Oppose At THIS time I oppose the NPO page as a Good Alliance Page, and here is why. If these comments are addressed, then I will change my vote. I will recognize that I believe NPO has the best organized official wiki team, and probably the best network of pages overall of alliances that I have seen, but there are numerous formatting and other issues that I don't like with this page as it stands today. :::* The "See Also" sections at the very top don't flow with the content. Turn these into normal links and work them into the content that is up there. :::* Expand upon the "History of the Order section. Try to summarize the entire alliances history in 3-5 paragraphs. Mostly major stuff. Also, Pacifica Monogatari remove the credits at the top. Also, Remove the template that shows off the founders of the order. Incorporate this into plain text. The Founders of the alliance will never change. I understand teh usage of the template for government officials, because it will make updating easier, but I don't believe the template is necessary to display the founders. :::* Throughout the remainder of the page, remove the colored titles for the headings. The lime green one looks like crap, and in general, it doesn't follow the standards used by every other page. It's a nice touch, but this is an encyclopedia, not private forums. :::* Recruiting Corps. The Gallery is ineffective to display these images. Upload new recruiting images that will display in the gallery format better, or choose one image to display in thumbnail format at an appropriate size that it actually adds to the article. :::* Media Corps. Again, remove the template and work it into plain text. the template attracts extra attention to something that is relatively minor if someone was trying to gather information quickly. :::* Gallery. Need captions for the last two images so it fits with the rest in the gallery. :::* See also section. Move the NPO template to the top, since it is the most relevant. Move the Robertology one to the bottom and/or just remove it all together because it is the least relevant. Possibly organize the other ones as well ::: J Andres (talk • ) 13:06, September 16, 2012 (UTC) ::Oppose - Not sure I like the different colors for the headings, but I'm not going to let my personal preferences for color condemn the aesthetics of the page on their own. My real beef is the lack of a significant history section for an alliance that has driven so much of the direction of Planet Bob over the years. Overall, I think the use of templates breaks up what would be just another insurmountable wall of text, but some are less useful than others. Walsh the Beloved (talk • ) 03:44, April 26, 2013 (UTC) The Legion *'Nomination' - Good description of the alliance as a whole (structure, government, war history/ribbons, history, treaties) and aesthetically pleasing from colored templates usage on the page. With links to charter, history, gov history. The departments could use a bit of an expansion is the only thing I'd say that would need to be worked on. Rogal talk 03:44,9/11/2012 (UTC) ::Oppose - My issues with the Legion's page are somewhat opposite my thoughts on Pacifica's; specifically, while I find the article well-formatted, I'm not certain it contains enough content. While information on history and admissions is well fleshed-out, I agree with Rogal's thoughts on the government departments, and furthermore think it definitely needs a more substantial introduction. Michael von Preußen | talk :: Oppose - Although I do like the graphics on Legion's page, I agree with Michael in saying that I don't think the information is quite there. They do have a good level of colour and links which saves their page in some ways but I still don't believe it is there yet. [[User:Dan100| ]] 09:02, September 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Comment - They do have links to separate informative pages about their history and one on their charter. Question: Are we voting based on the main alliance page solely, or should we also consider related pages that it links to?--LoganYeo (talk • ) 13:45, September 12, 2012 (UTC) :::These are nominations for individual pages, not alliances as a whole, as I understand it, so only the main page would be considered (though of course, one could argue the fact that it does link to other related pages is a plus). Michael von Preußen | talk :: Oppose - Not enough information to merit my support, it does have nice graphics added though. (Mantineia (talk • ) 21:22, September 12, 2012 (UTC)) :: Oppose - Once again, I will consider changing my vote if the following comments are considered. :::* Remove the "Statement of Respect" - If I want to find out information about the Legion, I could care less about their statement of respect. Make it a separate page and link to it here if desired. :::* History - Same comment that I made for New Pacific Order. Expand upon it in more detail here. :::* Although the templates for the government officials actually work well here visually we have to ask ourselves if it is useful to display a little box that displays only red links. In my opinion, it is not. No one is ever going to go to the Legion wiki page to find out who the Executive Director of Game Mechanics and Education is. Perhaps leave only the first box detailing the top officials. :: In general, I concur with the others that there is a lack of information on this page. J Andres (talk • ) 13:18, September 16, 2012 (UTC) ::Oppose - If you have a history section -- which almost seems to be the point of a wiki article -- you ought to list the history. Aesthetically broken up well, with templates and additions to break up the text wall, but a one paragraph history on an alliance this old is not acceptable. Walsh the Beloved (talk • ) 03:39, April 26, 2013 (UTC) The Imperial Order *'Nomination' - Great in-depth history, government, treaties, war history, image gallery. Additional links to charter, awards, gov history, TIO announcements. Rogal talk 03:44,9/11/2012 (UTC) ::Support per nom. Michael von Preußen | talk ::Support - My only suggestion would be to maybe have more colour in the middle of the page rather than a wall of text. [[User:Dan100| ]] 09:02, September 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Support - for the reasons outlined above - --LoganYeo (talk • ) 13:47, September 12, 2012 (UTC) ::Support - Nice and clean; I like the flow of the page as well. The graphics full end of the page is pretty cool too. (Mantineia (talk • ) 21:25, September 12, 2012 (UTC)) ::Oppose - Once again, I've made comments below. Out of the pages I have looked at, this one definitely has potential, but still requires some work. I will change my vote if corrections are made. :::* History - Most of the history section reads well, but you can tell that the history section was written as the actions happen. Certain things need to be summarized as it reads as too "listy." In general I advise going back through the entire history and rewriting it in better paragraph structure. Numerous one or two sentence paragraphs that were probably added in an ongoing fashion, can likely be combined into better pieces of writing. I recently did this with my own nation's history as I found I had placed too much emphasis on things in my early days as they were important then, but not overall. In particular, I have identified a few selected problem areas: ::::* Recovery - It is not relevant that TIO celebrated their first anniversary on April 6, 2011. The whole first four paragraphs of this section can be better written as one paragraph explaining how their were government reforms, new treaty partners. ::::* DnD Merger - As the flags shown here are the current flags and shown in the info box, perhaps it would be better to show the previous flags and explain that in the thumbnail? ::::* In general, mentioning treaties and alliance announcements seem to have too much emphasis. :::* Charter and Awards Sections -- There isn't enough info here to warrant having sections for them. Either expand them, or incorporate them. :: The rest of the page looks very good though. Template usage on the bottom of the page especially. J Andres (talk • ) 13:37, September 16, 2012 (UTC) ::Oppose - While full of information, this page is a classic "wall of text". The only thing that breaks it up are the introduction of two flags about midway through -- unfortunately, they are the same two flags pictured in the info box, and thus add nothing. The templates at the end arrive too late to save this page from being aesthetically displeasing, no matter how much good info is forced at the reader through words. Perhaps if each of the sections had something to break it up and make it more readable. Walsh the Beloved (talk • ) 03:36, April 26, 2013 (UTC) Valhalla *'Nomination' - Very in-depth history, government, alliance structure/departments, good use of templates, alliance treaties. Additional links to war history, charter, government history. Rogal talk 03:44,9/11/2012 (UTC) ::Tentative Support - As a former alliance, I think the article should be reformatted to use past tense consistently when referring to the alliance. Michael von Preußen | talk ::Support - Needs a rewording but a pretty well done wiki page [[User:Dan100| ]] 09:02, September 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Support - Very simplistic in a good way. Needs a few more graphics and rewording as suggested above. (Mantineia (talk • ) 21:27, September 12, 2012 (UTC)) :: Oppose - I concur with Michael. Numerous changes need to be made not just in the past tense, but the merge isn't even mentioned outside of the "Merge notice" at the top. It isn't mentioned in the history. Extensive changes need to be made to treaty sections and government officers, etc. J Andres (talk • ) 13:42, September 16, 2012 (UTC) Mostly Harmless Alliance *'Nomination' - Good description of alliance structure, culture, government, war history/ribbons, and international relations. good use of thumbnail images throughout article. brief summaries of history/charter/government positions with additional links to all. Rogal talk 03:44,9/11/2012 (UTC) ::Support per nom. Article does an excellent job of providing all relevant information without being unnecessarily verbose. Images are also used extremely well. Michael von Preußen | talk ::Tentative Support - The page has been done reasonably well. I wouldn't have two places where treaties are displayed and that many government members showing but the page is reasonable. [[User:Dan100| ]] 09:03, September 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Supportn - per nom. - sign your name LoganYeo (talk • ) 13:48, September 12, 2012 (UTC) ::Support - Reasons as outlined above. (Mantineia (talk • ) 21:29, September 12, 2012 (UTC)) :: Support, with Comments - Before someone says that I oppose everything.... I've still got comments with MHA, although these are the most simple to fix. :::* Remove all first person references in "Don't Panic" and "The MHA Way". :::* The graphic detailing the minister progression is very informative, but isn't useful in its current location and it's also outdated by 9 months. Remove it from this page and plop it down somewhere else. Maybe in Ministries of the Mostly Harmless Alliance. :: J Andres (talk • ) 13:48, September 16, 2012 (UTC) New Polar Order *'Nomination' - alliance charter, good alliance history, war history/ribbons, image gallery, international relations, alliance structure/departments as well as department head history and good use of dept images/templates throughout the article. Only slight against it would be a rather small / not-up-to-date alliance history section compared to the alliance's life Rogal talk 03:44,9/11/2012 (UTC) ::Tentative Support, providing the alliance history could be updated as Rogal suggested. Michael von Preußen | talk ::Tentative Support - I think that the wiki page needs a little reformatting. I also agree with what Rogal has said. [[User:Dan100| ]] 09:03, September 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Tentative Support - provided that the above suggestions/requirements are met. (Mantineia (talk • ) 21:31, September 12, 2012 (UTC)) :: Oppose NpO has potential, but is in need of updating. :::* Charter - We don't need the full body of it here. Summarize and move the full text elsewhere like many other alliances. :::* Update References - In one spot, NpO is described as the 4th strongest alliance in the game, in another spot is is described as 16th. All of these references should be removed (unless linked to a historical date) because they change too frequently to update. :::* History - Has any history been added to this recently at all? It looks terribly out of date. All references that include months need to include years with them. At first glance, you see references to July then you scroll down to see that the last year mentioned was 2008. A current alliance needs to have their history updated more frequently than once every 4 years. :::* Members - Many of these notable members are mentioned and linked to in the history. The rest of them, if they are truly notable, should also be included in the history section. Then this can be removed. :::* Ministries and Leadership -- Move the Current Leadership Template and Emperors of Polaris Template up before the ministries. Remove the templates in each corresponding ministry. As the entire history of every minister is listed, the template adds no additional detail other then telling you who the Deputy minister is. Deputy Ministers are always forgotten to time, and the deputy minister is listed on the main leadership template anyway. Duplicate data. ::J Andres (talk • ) 14:03, September 16, 2012 (UTC) ::Tentative Support - Needs the updates suggested above. Also move the War History sub-section under History instead of having it on the same level. CloudSpirit (talk • ) 22:35, February 21, 2013 (UTC) Umbrella While it is does not include history, it does have a massive amount of available information, policies, etc. [[User:Ansontx| ]] 16:18, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 ( ) :Oppose it's a pretty bare article in terms of alliance articles goes. It has treaties and an out-of-date timeline of events. Rogal talk 21:59,11/20/2012 (UTC) Orange Defense Network This one includes a lot of relevant information pertaining to ODN. [[User:Ansontx| ]] 16:18, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 ( ) :Conditional Oppose If ODN's page wasn't broken I suppose I'd say yes. I like the use of images and the graphics gallery, I like the breakdown of who's who in gov. I like that there's a war history, etc. Rogal talk 21:59,11/20/2012 (UTC) ::Support: I think I fixed whatever was broken a while ago, but I think it's better these days. Rogal talk 19:49,4/20/2013 (UTC) :Support: Looks good from here. Like the visual treaty web image. CloudSpirit (talk • ) 22:39, February 21, 2013 (UTC) The International This one has more directly included info than Umbrella, but less than ODN.. still very informative. [[User:Ansontx| ]] 16:18, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 ( ) Global Alliance and Treaty Organization This one is very informative. [[User:Ansontx| ]] 16:18, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 ( ) :Abstain I think if GATO updated their alliance history they would be a good candidate. Right now it just seems like not enough on the article for some reason. Rogal talk 21:59,11/20/2012 (UTC) Hooligans Informative, could use some slight adjustments to make it more easily readable. [[User:Ansontx| ]] 16:18, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 ( ) :Oppose The wiki page is just aesthetically displeasing, the war boxes look very cluttered, although it does provide a lot of information. Rogal talk 21:59,11/20/2012 (UTC) Anarchy Inc. Not necessarily one for the record books, but definitely one to keep an eye on [[User:Ansontx| ]] 16:18, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 ( ) :Abstain I think once Ai gets some history and a war under their belt and a good history section is written and war section added then it would be a very good candidate, they have charter, gov history, treaties, graphics, announcement history, awards. Rogal talk 21:59,11/20/2012 (UTC) Mushroom Kingdom It's informative, but could use some layout restructure. [[User:Ansontx| ]] 16:18, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 ( ) :Oppose There's nothing that sets the MK page out from the rest. It does have an in-depth history until 2010. It has a war history and it has treaties, that's about it. Rogal talk 21:59,11/20/2012 (UTC)